· Private foundation
The Dixon Water Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $185k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $209k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BORDERLANDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AR SRSU | $159,000 |
| HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL | $50,000 |
| TEXAS LAND CONSERVANCY | $40,000 |
| NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC DBA AUDUBON TEXAS | $40,000 |
| TEXAS AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST | $25,000 |
| THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN TEXAS | $20,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOUNDATION INC | $18,591 |
| HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE | $16,000 |
| NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS | $15,000 |
| DEVILS RIVER CONSERVANCY | $10,000 |
| SAND COUNTY FOUNDATION | $7,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 87% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
25 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $178k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- TNTHE NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS4× · 2020–2024 · $133k · revenue +631%
- HCHill Country Alliance5× · 2019–2024 · $121k · revenue +127%
- TLTexas Land Conservancy2× · 2019–2024 · $90k · revenue +124%
Funded once
- PPIONEERSone grant, 2019 · $41k
- TCTaking Care of Texasgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +300%
- BRBOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS INCone grant, 2022 · $23k · revenue +16%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Fish and wildlife conservation and outreach including public awareness. Fifteen public relations campaign on social media with over 7.5 million impressions. Twenty plus speaking engagements to a variety of conservation organizations…
Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation (TPWF) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization thatadvances Texas proud outdoor traditions through meaningful, high-impact programs,partnerships, and a wide range of projects that conserve and enhance our…
We acquire properties to be donated to the National Park Service and state entities and advocate for protection of Big Thicket natural resources.
Trinity Park Conservancy champions the transformation of the Trinity River to become the heart of Dallas. With the community, the Conservancy will design public spaces that unite us, enrich people's lives through access to nature, create…
The mission of Bexar Land Trust (Green Spaces) is to sustain the natural environment and enhance urban spaces through land conservation, community engagement, and education.
The Coastal Prairie Conservancy (CPC) works to sustain a resilient Texas by preserving coastal prairies, wetlands, farms, and ranches to benefit people and wildlife forever. Continued on Schedule OCPC conserves land, restores and enhances…
The organization's primary mission is conserving land where people and nature can thrive by creating green corridors linking existing public lands using conservation easments and outright purchase.
Wetlands america trust, inc. is a nonprofit organization formed in 1985 to expand ducks unlimited, inc's mission to provide leadership in the protection of the natural balance of wetlands ecosystems ensuring the future viability of…
Build a coalition of interests to foster and strengthen relationships between the rice industry and the natural resources of our rice producing area.
To preserve land along streams for flood control, clean water, and wildlife in the geographical area that drains into lake houston.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Conservation Alliance and the most unlike its peers is Holistic Manangement International. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 24 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
25 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 25 of the 41 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds HOLISTIC MANANGEMENT INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds THE NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS ↗
- Who funds Hill Country Alliance ↗
- Who funds KIDS ON THE LAND INC ↗
- Who funds Texas Land Conservancy ↗
- Who funds OGALLALA COMMONS INC ↗
- Who funds DEVILS RIVER CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds American Bird Conservancy ↗
- Who funds Texas Agricultural Land Trust ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE AND CARNIVORES INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS WATER TRADE ↗
- Who funds Meridian Institute ↗
- Who funds THE SAND COUNTY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Taking Care of Texas ↗
- Who funds BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds Texas Conservation Alliance ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Headwaters at Incarnate Word Inc ↗
- Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIRD OBSERVATORY ↗
- Who funds SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TEXAS LAND TRUST COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds BIG BEND RANCH RODEO INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The Horizon Foundation · The Cynthia & George Mitchell Foundation · Shield-Ayres Foundation · Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation · Meadows Foundation Inc · Hixon Family Foundation · The Knobloch Family Foundation · Still Water Foundation · Austin Community Foundation Inc · Patagoniaorg · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Malcolm C Damuth Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Dixon Water Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Dixon Water Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Dixon Water Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.